The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible and non-fabricated evidence to establish guilt in criminal cases, particularly when based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J. - The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide Judgment dated 30.07.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore in Sessions Case No.46/2012 (C.I.S. No.95/2014):

2. Being aggrieved of the impugned Judgment, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.

3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted herein below:

4. A written report (Ex.P/20) came to be lodged by Bhalaram (PW-5) at the Police Station Bhinmal, District Jalore on 26.07.2012 alleging inter alia that his brother Shankraram used to operate his Tavera vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-19-UA-4479 on hire. On 20.07.2012 in the evening at about 07.30 PM., Shankraram was at the Bhinmal Railway Station. But thereafter, he could not be traced upon which, Jabra Ram (PW-10) lodged a Missing Person Report at the Police Station Bhinmal, District Jalore. On enquiry being made, the informant came to know that Deeparam S/o Bharta Ram (appellant herein), Ghevaram S/o Bharta Ram, Narpat Singh S/o Ajab Singh, Satyaveer Singh S/o Narpat Singh and Chhagandas S/o Gangaram hatched a conspiracy; engaged Shankraram s taxi with evil intention and in all probability, Shankraram had been confined somewhere or might have been killed. When Shankraram was taken away, he was in possession of a sum of Rs.32,000/- with him.

On the basis of the report aforestated, an FIR No.276/2012 dated 26.07.2012 (Ex.P/82) came to be registered at Police Station Bhinmal, District Jalore for the offences under Sections 365 and 346 IPC. The investigation was assigned to Dinesh Kumar (PW-21) SHO, Police Station Bhinmal. The appellant herein was arrested on 29.07.2012 vide arrest memo (Ex.P/1) wherein, the time of arrest has been shown as 11.15 AM. The prosecution claims that the accused appellant Deeparam gave an information to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act which was recorded in memorandum (Ex.P/83) prepared at 11.55 AM. whereby, the accused offered to take the Investigating officer to the village Sanwarda where the dead body of Shankraram was buried after he had been murdered. The prosecution further claims that in furtherance of such information, the Investigating Officer, proceeded to the village Sanwarda and the dead body of Shankraram was dug out from a pit pointed out by the accused appellant in presence of the SDM Smt. Chanchal Verma (PW-20). This procedure was recorded in memorandum (Ex.P/15) prepared on 29.07.2012 at 02.00 PM. The Fard Surathal Lash of Shankraram was recorded in memorandum Ex.P/16. The Fard Panchnama Lash was recorded in memorandum Ex.P/17. It may be stated here that none of these three documents bear the signatures/ thumb impression of the appellant herein.

Be that as it may. The remaining accused persons namely Ghevaram S/o Bharta Ram, Narpat Singh S/o Ajab Singh, Satyaveer Singh S/o Narpat Singh and Chhagandas S/o Gangaram (acquitted after trial), were also arrested in this case. It is alleged that call details of mobile phones of the accused were collected. The Investigating Officer Dinesh Kumar (PW-21) further claims to have recorded the information of the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act vide memorandum (Ex.P/84) dated 30.07.2012 on the strength whereof, the place where the Tavera vehicle was looted, was verified vide memorandum (Ex.P/4) dated 02.08.2012. The accused Sherin Khan was arrested on 27.02.2012 vide arrest memo (Ex.P/7) and acting on the information provided by him to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex.P/88), the